The Mueller Report thread

[*michaelsean*]

I have no problem with having had an investigation. Trump will now have to hail Mueller as being the most ethical moral person alive, while the Dems may drop his beatification on his way to sainthood. Trump will be more unbearable.

I do find it funny that anyone tries to deny that Russians would try to meddle in our election. At least argue that they weren't successful, but that they don't even try?

[Bengalzona]

(03-25-2019, 12:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I have no problem with having had an investigation.  Trump will now have to hail Mueller as being the most ethical moral person alive, while the Dems may drop his beatification on his way to sainthood.  Trump will be more unbearable.  

I do find it funny that anyone tries to deny that Russians would try to meddle in our election.  At least argue that they weren't successful, but that they don't even try?

Yeah. And then there are some who say that it is "okay" because the Chinese and Saudis do it.

I'm like, "Okay. Let's go after them as well." The 'everybody's doing it' argument sort of pisses me off.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-25-2019, 11:21 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think the Mueller investigation is dead in the water, from a Democrat perspective. Seeing the report will only make Democrats think the same thing they're already thinking "You can't prove anything, but you didn't exonerate him."

That is what I assume the majority of rational Democrats were expecting from the final report. Or, at the very least, they were taking the pessimistic route and hoping, against hope, that the final report would result in something other than "not enough to prove, not enough to exonerate."

The focus will now shift towards the SDNY investigation, which I have no idea when that'll all wrap up. But the idea of government returning "back to normal" is a fantasy that Republicans have long held out for at the conclusion of this report, and I think they're going to be awfully disappointed when they realize there are still plenty of investigations going on. The Mueller one is just the first to make landfall.

I wouldn’t count on the southern district. Chuck has just recently been fired and replaced by Brian. Now Chuck wants to get Brian and Brian wants to get Chuck. No telling what’s going to happen there.

[Goalpost]

If this continues expect Trump to fire back. Best he could say is that this was a witch hunt, and he could not take action with Mueller still investigating. Now that Mueller is done, he actually can do things with less obstruction consequences.

[BmorePat87]

(03-25-2019, 11:21 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think the Mueller investigation is dead in the water, from a Democrat perspective. Seeing the report will only make Democrats think the same thing they're already thinking "You can't prove anything, but you didn't exonerate him."

That is what I assume the majority of rational Democrats were expecting from the final report. Or, at the very least, they were taking the pessimistic route and hoping, against hope, that the final report would result in something other than "not enough to prove, not enough to exonerate."

The focus will now shift towards the SDNY investigation, which I have no idea when that'll all wrap up. But the idea of government returning "back to normal" is a fantasy that Republicans have long held out for at the conclusion of this report, and I think they're going to be awfully disappointed when they realize there are still plenty of investigations going on. The Mueller one is just the first to make landfall.

With regards to collusion? Yes. 

With regards to obstruction of justice? Based on Barr's report, it seems like no. Mueller seems to take the position: "this is left up to Congress or SCOTUS to decide what constitutes obstruction of justice". 

Again, this is just based off on one summary of the report. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-25-2019, 11:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Obstruction of justice will be interesting moving forward. The fact that Mueller apparently gives arguments for both ends will means this is far from over.

What will be interesting with collusion is what is detailed in the report as being legal/no criminal intent. I have to imagine Democrats will try to pass something that makes it a crime to do whatever Stone and Papadopoulus did.

Obstruction is a dead end, just like the collusion allegation.  Essentially Mueller is saying he doesn't have evidence of obstruction but that doesn't mean Trump is innocent.  The Dems come out of this looking really bad and idiots like Don Lemon are doubling down instead of admitting they were banging a non-existent drum for two years.  The smartest things the Dems could do would be to acknowledge the investigations thoroughness and express relief and pleasure at its findings.  Continuing to harp on any part of this issue will only help Trump and the GOP in 2020.  The Dems already look foolish, putting it as far in their rear view mirror would be the smart move.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-25-2019, 08:59 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am, and will remain, a proponent of investigative journalism. Of good journalism. It does still exist out there with some of the writers doing their thing. One of the journalists I like to read a lot is Matt Taibbi. Some of you may know him. He wrote the book I Can't Breathe about Eric Garner specifically, but community policing and excessive force more broadly. He has been writing a serial book called Hate Inc. which is a biut of an indictment on the current media landscape. This is a snippet from the introduction:


I just started reading this from Taibbi over the weekend, but this sentiment is one of the reasons you have seen me state that I follow journalists online, not their outlets. Anyway, the reason for me bringing this all up is because Taibbi made a post on Saturday that was a little earlier than he was planning, but the timing of everything was too good. In this post, he discusses the media's failings with their reporting on Russiagate. I encourage you to check it out, and the rest of the public posts he has out there, if you have the time.


It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD

Excellent article, thank you for posting it.  It expresses my exact thoughts on this issue, which may be a reason I like it so much. 

[fredtoast]

(03-25-2019, 02:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  The Dems come out of this looking really bad and idiots like Don Lemon are doubling down instead of admitting they were banging a non-existent drum for two years.  The smartest things the Dems could do would be to acknowledge the investigations thoroughness and express relief and pleasure at its findings.  Continuing to harp on any part of this issue will only help Trump and the GOP in 2020.  The Dems already look foolish, putting it as far in their rear view mirror would be the smart move.

They don't look any worse than the Republicans after several Benghazi investigations found Hillary did nothing wrong and a Bush appointed FBI director concluded she broke no laws with the use of her private server.

I agree Dems need to move on, but the extremists on both sides look stupid when the refuse to accept the results of these investigations.

[Belsnickel]

(03-25-2019, 02:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Obstruction is a dead end, just like the collusion allegation.  Essentially Mueller is saying he doesn't have evidence of obstruction but that doesn't mean Trump is innocent. The Dems come out of this looking really bad and idiots like Don Lemon are doubling down instead of admitting they were banging a non-existent drum for two years.  The smartest things the Dems could do would be to acknowledge the investigations thoroughness and express relief and pleasure at its findings.  Continuing to harp on any part of this issue will only help Trump and the GOP in 2020.  The Dems already look foolish, putting it as far in their rear view mirror would be the smart move.

That is what Barr said. This is why I stated earlier that the remaining question I have is, from Mueller himself, why he decided to not make a prosecutorial decision on obstruction. Without that, we can only speculate why/what Mueller said with regards to obstruction.

[Benton]

(03-25-2019, 02:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Obstruction is a dead end, just like the collusion allegation.  Essentially Mueller is saying he doesn't have evidence of obstruction but that doesn't mean Trump is innocent.  The Dems come out of this looking really bad and idiots like Don Lemon are doubling down instead of admitting they were banging a non-existent drum for two years.  The smartest things the Dems could do would be to acknowledge the investigations thoroughness and express relief and pleasure at its findings.  Continuing to harp on any part of this issue will only help Trump and the GOP in 2020.  The Dems already look foolish, putting it as far in their rear view mirror would be the smart move.

I'm kind of surprised. There's several Democrats in Congress pushing for release of the report or criticizing Barr for deciding not to indict less than two days after the report wrapped up. If the Dems were smart, they'd say 'hey, thanks for the thoroughness, look at the 30+ indictments/pleas we got out of corrupt government people or supporters. Let's hope for a higher standard.'

Instead, they're still making it about Trump.

I'm beginning to wonder if the strategists for the Democratic party are registered Republicans. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-25-2019, 02:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They don't look any worse than the Republicans after several Benghazi investigations found Hillary did nothing wrong and a Bush appointed FBI director concluded she broke no laws with the use of her private server.

Yeah, they absolutely do.  The GOP looked stupid over Benghazi, but it was nothing on the scale of the accusations against Trump that now appear to have been fabricated whole-cloth.  The Dems and most of the media have been telling us for two years that Trump was a foreign agent, that he was in Putin's pocket, that Putin had video of Trump getting urinated on by hookers.  the scale and depth of the accusation make Benghazi look like the beergarden summit critics.  I've said from the beginning that this wasn't going to pan out the way the Dems and their supporters hoped and that it was going to make them all look very bad.

Quote:I agree Dems need to move on, but the extremists on both sides look stupid when the refuse to accept the results of these investigations.

I concur; however, the sheer scale of this example sets it apart.  As Bel's link correlates, the only comparison is the Iraqi "WMD's".  The comparison is apt due to the scale of the mistake.  Russiagate certainly doesn't carry the human and economic cost of the second Iraq war and its fallout, but it is unprecedented in the scope and intensity of the allegations aimed at a lawfully elected President.  This is insanely damaging and, if you'll forgive a personal observation, it appears you realize this and are attempting to mitigate it with your Benghazi comparison.  

[Belsnickel]

(03-25-2019, 02:49 PM)Benton Wrote: I'm kind of surprised. There's several Democrats in Congress pushing for release of the report or criticizing Barr for deciding not to indict less than two days after the report wrapped up. If the Dems were smart, they'd say 'hey, thanks for the thoroughness, look at the 30+ indictments/pleas we got out of corrupt government people or supporters. Let's hope for a higher standard.'

Instead, they're still making it about Trump.

I'm beginning to wonder if the strategists for the Democratic party are registered Republicans. 

Democrats are terrible at running for office.

[fredtoast]

(03-25-2019, 02:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  The Dems and most of the media have been telling us for two years that Trump was a foreign agent, that he was in Putin's pocket, that Putin had video of Trump getting urinated on by hookers.  The scale and depth of the accusation make Benghazi look like the beergarden summit critics. 

This is not true.  Extremists have been saying that just like right-wing extremists chanted "lock her up" whenever Hillary's name was mentioned.

The media has been critical of Trump for a lot of stuff, but I watch a lot of news and I did not see "most of the media" saying Trump was an agent of Putin.

Your "scale and depth" of the accusations were pretty much the same.  And your inability to see this kind of proves my point.  How many arenas full of Democrats have you heard chanting "lock him up" about Trump. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-25-2019, 02:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That is what Barr said. This is why I stated earlier that the remaining question I have is, from Mueller himself, why he decided to not make a prosecutorial decision on obstruction. Without that, we can only speculate why/what Mueller said with regards to obstruction.

As a Steelers fan I know you'll appreciate this comparison.  When Ben wasn't indicted for the alleged rape at the bar the DA in that county gave an insanely unprofessional speech excoriating Ben for his lack of morals and his horrible conduct, but oh, by the way, I don't have any evidence of a crime.  It's a public relations way of revealing what you know will be an unpopular finding.  Mueller is doing the same thing in a less obvious way.  The prosecutor's job is to prove a case.  If they can't prove a case then the person being investigated can, and should, claim exoneration.  In general I have a lot of respect for Mueller, he ran a tight ship and, one egregious example aside, prevented leaks.  But this last move is a cowardly cop out on his part.  He'd had done better to just state I have no evidence that support obstruction charges against Trump and leave it at that.

(03-25-2019, 02:49 PM)Benton Wrote: I'm kind of surprised. There's several Democrats in Congress pushing for release of the report or criticizing Barr for deciding not to indict less than two days after the report wrapped up. If the Dems were smart, they'd say 'hey, thanks for the thoroughness, look at the 30+ indictments/pleas we got out of corrupt government people or supporters. Let's hope for a higher standard.'

Instead, they're still making it about Trump.

I'm beginning to wonder if the strategists for the Democratic party are registered Republicans. 

The Dems biggest weakness has always been a lack of unity and a central message.  While both parties tend to trip over their own feet the Dems have nothing like the ability that the GOP can demonstrate of getting in lockstep with each other.  I know some would criticize this ability, but politically the ability to unite around a single message and prevent damaging public dissent is a huge advantage.  If you had asked me last month if Trump was going to win in 2020 I'd have said it was doubtful.  The way I see the wind blowing now I think he's almost a shoo-in.  Of course a lot can change in eighteen or so months, but right now the Dems have really stepped in it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-25-2019, 02:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is not true.  Extremists have been saying that just like right-wing extremists chanted "lock her up" whenever Hillary's name was mentioned.

The media has been critical of Trump for a lot of stuff, but I watch a lot of news and I did not see "most of the media" saying Trump was an agent of Putin.

Your "scale and depth" of the accusations were pretty much the same.  And your inability to see this kind of proves my point.  How many arenas full of Democrats have you heard chanting "lock him up" about Trump. 

Oh, Fred are you really incapable of distinguishing between campaign rally antics and the supposed professional work of journalists and politicians?  Also, are you're really trying to make me, or anyone else believe that the media hasn't been all in on the "Russia collusion" issue from the start?  Trump trashes the media and they made it personal, many of them abandoning their ethics in the process.  Read Bel's linked article, then respond.

[Belsnickel]

(03-25-2019, 02:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As a Steelers fan I know you'll appreciate this comparison.  When Ben wasn't indicted for the alleged rape at the bar the DA in that county gave an insanely unprofessional speech excoriating Ben for his lack of morals and his horrible conduct, but oh, by the way, I don't have any evidence of a crime.  It's a public relations way of revealing what you know will be an unpopular finding.  Mueller is doing the same thing in a less obvious way.  The prosecutor's job is to prove a case.  If they can't prove a case then the person being investigated can, and should, claim exoneration.  In general I have a lot of respect for Mueller, he ran a tight ship and, one egregious example aside, prevented leaks.  But this last move is a cowardly cop out on his part.  He'd had done better to just state I have no evidence that support obstruction charges against Trump and leave it at that.

I disagree. You're making assumptions. First, the standard for indicting versus a guilty verdict is different. So there are two different levels of evidence at play there. Which one (if any) wasn't met? Did Mueller's decision come about because of DoJ guidelines on not indicting a sitting president, thus leaving the decision to the head of the DoJ? Did his decision come from a position where he did not feel it was within his scope to make the determination, whether because of the memo appointing him or because it required an interpretation of obstruction not within his purview to provide? Those are questions that you are assuming answers to with your position.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-25-2019, 03:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I disagree. You're making assumptions. First, the standard for indicting versus a guilty verdict is different. So there are two different levels of evidence at play there. Which one (if any) wasn't met? Did Mueller's decision come about because of DoJ guidelines on not indicting a sitting president, thus leaving the decision to the head of the DoJ? Did his decision come from a position where he did not feel it was within his scope to make the determination, whether because of the memo appointing him or because it required an interpretation of obstruction not within his purview to provide? Those are questions that you are assuming answers to with your position.

A well reasoned counter.  I suppose we'll have to wait and see if the reason for doing so is ever fully expressed.

[Belsnickel]

(03-25-2019, 03:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A well reasoned counter.  I suppose we'll have to wait and see if the reason for doing so is ever fully expressed.

Indeed. This is why I say without those answers, the decision on obstruction will not be put to rest. I was not one that argued Barr should not be appointed, or that he should recuse himself, because of the memo he provided to certain parties in the government. It was not out-of-the-norm, and it wasn't unreasonable. That being said, the memo itself is evidence of a bias in his prosecutorial discretion regarding obstruction, setting a higher benchmark than some others might. Knowing that, it would be difficult to take his decision at face value without knowing more from Mueller's report.

I'm someone that wants this all behind us as quickly as possible. I think Democratic politicians and media outlets have overplayed their hands and continuing to drag this out is pointless. They need to accept the no-collusion decision. If the decision on no-obstruction is based on a lack of evidence, then they need to move on from that as well. I would rather we not have a president indicted, because it's not good for the country. But we need all the information.

[GMDino]

(03-25-2019, 03:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Indeed. This is why I say without those answers, the decision on obstruction will not be put to rest. I was not one that argued Barr should not be appointed, or that he should recuse himself, because of the memo he provided to certain parties in the government. It was not out-of-the-norm, and it wasn't unreasonable. That being said, the memo itself is evidence of a bias in his prosecutorial discretion regarding obstruction, setting a higher benchmark than some others might. Knowing that, it would be difficult to take his decision at face value without knowing more from Mueller's report.

I'm someone that wants this all behind us as quickly as possible. I think Democratic politicians and media outlets have overplayed their hands and continuing to drag this out is pointless. They need to accept the no-collusion decision. If the decision on no-obstruction is based on a lack of evidence, then they need to move on from that as well. I would rather we not have a president indicted, because it's not good for the country. But we need all the information.

I agree. 

Plus DJT will hand them something else shady any minute now. 

[Benton]

(03-25-2019, 02:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As a Steelers fan I know you'll appreciate this comparison.  When Ben wasn't indicted for the alleged rape at the bar the DA in that county gave an insanely unprofessional speech excoriating Ben for his lack of morals and his horrible conduct, but oh, by the way, I don't have any evidence of a crime.  It's a public relations way of revealing what you know will be an unpopular finding.  Mueller is doing the same thing in a less obvious way.  The prosecutor's job is to prove a case.  If they can't prove a case then the person being investigated can, and should, claim exoneration.  In general I have a lot of respect for Mueller, he ran a tight ship and, one egregious example aside, prevented leaks.  But this last move is a cowardly cop out on his part.  He'd had done better to just state I have no evidence that support obstruction charges against Trump and leave it at that.


The Dems biggest weakness has always been a lack of unity and a central message.  While both parties tend to trip over their own feet the Dems have nothing like the ability that the GOP can demonstrate of getting in lockstep with each other.  I know some would criticize this ability, but politically the ability to unite around a single message and prevent damaging public dissent is a huge advantage.  If you had asked me last month if Trump was going to win in 2020 I'd have said it was doubtful.  The way I see the wind blowing now I think he's almost a shoo-in.  Of course a lot can change in eighteen or so months, but right now the Dems have really stepped in it.

Trunps biggest threat at this point may be in his own party.